If general consensus says that morality is subjective, then why is it (morals) perpetually disputed? Why do peoples' pants get wet whenever someone thinks otherwise about a certain issue? If all controversy is subjective, then is there even a controversy to begin with?

At 4/2/2014 4:58:35 PM, ben2974 wrote:If general consensus says that morality is subjective, then why is it (morals) perpetually disputed?

Because we know inside there is something called good and something called evil ;)

Why do peoples' pants get wet whenever someone thinks otherwise about a certain issue? If all controversy is subjective, then is there even a controversy to begin with?

Sometimes people get "wet" because they see injustice in the world. Other times it is because they are bent on immorality themselves and are just being greedy! Sometimes it is a mix of both, which is where most politics fall...

Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.

I would say that the entire field of ethical discourse exists at all in large part because it is our way of trying to solve the problems of interpersonal conflicts of interests, including different beliefs as to what is right and wrong. It seems to me that it would be entirely unnecessary if there were a demonstrable objective standard, so basically the complete opposite of what you're arguing.

That said, I think that the entire objective-subjective dichotomy is inherently flawed.

At 4/2/2014 4:58:35 PM, ben2974 wrote:If general consensus says that morality is subjective, then why is it (morals) perpetually disputed? Why do peoples' pants get wet whenever someone thinks otherwise about a certain issue? If all controversy is subjective, then is there even a controversy to begin with?

Because there isn't a general consensus that morality is subjective.

"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater

At 4/2/2014 4:58:35 PM, ben2974 wrote:If general consensus says that morality is subjective, then why is it (morals) perpetually disputed? Why do peoples' pants get wet whenever someone thinks otherwise about a certain issue? If all controversy is subjective, then is there even a controversy to begin with?

At 4/2/2014 4:58:35 PM, ben2974 wrote:If general consensus says that morality is subjective, then why is it (morals) perpetually disputed? Why do peoples' pants get wet whenever someone thinks otherwise about a certain issue? If all controversy is subjective, then is there even a controversy to begin with?

Because there isn't a general consensus that morality is subjective.

Might that mean that if there was a consensus saying that morality is subjective , anarchy would dominate? Chaos would ensue and everybody wouldn't think twice about the meanings and therefore the consequences of their actions? I couldn't see a world without objectified morals any other way. At the end of it all, I definitely think there are some elemental factors in the human condition that provide a sort of starting point for moral standards (objectified morals).

Example:Access to food and water, as well as shelter, and maximizing the gains from these conditions. With this, you start here and build morals to support these elemental factors.

That said, I think that the entire objective-subjective dichotomy is inherently flawed.

Can you elaborate?

A bit; I'll try, at least. However, my head currently feels like it might fall off and my body can't decide if I'm in Siberia or the Sahara, so I can't promise much.

First of all, I see ethics as being the aesthetics of human action; good = beautiful, evil = ugliness. By this very simplified definition, there is room for both 'subjective' and 'objective' influences on any given issue. For example, I may not be a fan of the music of Elgar or the paintings of Constable in that neither really raise much of an emotional response in me, but I can certainly appreciate their technical expertise and vision. Do I think Elgar & Constable are good or bad, then? I think the answer is that on certain more objective criteria, I think they're good, but on my more subjective perspective I find them lacking.

Similarly, I respect those who seek to protect others from harm but oppose censorship in general. I appreciate the intent of someone who seeks to keep people safe, but disagree with their approach to doing so. This is the mirror of the Elgar & Constable example, as here I can 'objectively' appreciate their good intent but 'subjectively' find the implementation distasteful.

In short, trying to judge something purely on intent or purely on actions leads us into thinking things are more simple than they are. This includes our asking the question "is morality subjective or objective?", as it creates a false dichotomy which then means we are less likely to consider solutions that don't accord with the binary framing of the discussion.

Additionally, I think we need to look at how we use rules. Some are clearly 'subjective' in that they're socio-cultural norms. Others could be argued as objective as they seem to hold at least roughly true everywhere. I think this, again, is a tempting way to confuse the issue. For example; are the rules of chess subjective or objective? Having considered this and answered it either way, how about this; are the rules of chess subjective or objective when you are playing chess?

I am not saying that things definitively are one, the other or neither. What I mean is that I think they're an inherently flawed way of thinking about the matters the seek to make sense of. At least, more inherently flawed than treating morality more like a game with different play styles within the same generalised set of rules that are required for people to play. This need not be 'objective' (nor need they not be; I don't really see how it matters), simply necessary for the functioning of the game. You don't kill other players, you don't sneak moves when no-one is looking and you don't tip the board over in a hissy fit if things don't go your way. If you don't want to play the game then that's fine, but with the freedom to not play comes the freedom of others to not play with you.

Urgh. That's not even as coherent as I was hoping it might turn out, but I hope it at least gives a hint of what I'm trying to get out.

What (I think!) you're saying about emergent problem solving based on needs is fairly near to what I mean, actually. There are certain required functional factors which inform the evolution of our thinking and behaviour regarding more complex problems. Some sort of Compromise Utilitarianism, where instead of 'maximal happiness' we go for 'maximal co-existence'.

At 4/2/2014 4:58:35 PM, ben2974 wrote:If general consensus says that morality is subjective, then why is it (morals) perpetually disputed? Why do peoples' pants get wet whenever someone thinks otherwise about a certain issue? If all controversy is subjective, then is there even a controversy to begin with?

Because there are still ethics to worry about. Ethics are the collective morals of society. If the overwhelming majority of society decides homosexuality is immoral, then it is also considered unethical. Ethics help decide what a society's rules/laws are, so when people differ on morals it can change society in an unwanted (to certain individuals) way.

At 4/2/2014 4:58:35 PM, ben2974 wrote:If general consensus says that morality is subjective, then why is it (morals) perpetually disputed? Why do peoples' pants get wet whenever someone thinks otherwise about a certain issue? If all controversy is subjective, then is there even a controversy to begin with?

Because there isn't a general consensus that morality is subjective.

Depends who you ask.

Which is my point, if it depends on who you ask, then there isn't a general consensus.

"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater

At 4/2/2014 4:58:35 PM, ben2974 wrote:If general consensus says that morality is subjective, then why is it (morals) perpetually disputed? Why do peoples' pants get wet whenever someone thinks otherwise about a certain issue? If all controversy is subjective, then is there even a controversy to begin with?

Because there isn't a general consensus that morality is subjective.

Depends who you ask.

Which is my point, if it depends on who you ask, then there isn't a general consensus.

At 4/2/2014 4:58:35 PM, ben2974 wrote:If general consensus says that morality is subjective, then why is it (morals) perpetually disputed? Why do peoples' pants get wet whenever someone thinks otherwise about a certain issue? If all controversy is subjective, then is there even a controversy to begin with?

I don't understand how some people can NOT like banana nut bread, but that doesn't mean that banana nut bread is objectively good.

On the other hand, I'm a moral objectivist.

"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle

At 4/2/2014 5:04:38 PM, Graincruncher wrote:I would say that the entire field of ethical discourse exists at all in large part because it is our way of trying to solve the problems of interpersonal conflicts of interests, including different beliefs as to what is right and wrong. It seems to me that it would be entirely unnecessary if there were a demonstrable objective standard, so basically the complete opposite of what you're arguing.

I don't agree with this. People debate moral issues because they think there are correct answers to moral questions that can be discovered through debate and reason. If morality were subjective, then arguing over moral issues would be like arguing over whether ice cream tastes good. It would be silly.

That said, I think that the entire objective-subjective dichotomy is inherently flawed.

I don't agree with that either.

"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle

At 4/3/2014 12:00:33 AM, philochristos wrote:I don't agree with this. People debate moral issues because they think there are correct answers to moral questions that can be discovered through debate and reason. If morality were subjective, then arguing over moral issues would be like arguing over whether ice cream tastes good. It would be silly.

We would still need to find ways to co-exist. Just because people may hold subjective views doesn't mean they don't care passionately about them, nor does it mean they suddenly don't have to deal with the fact we exist as part of a society and therefore have to work out social norms and rules.

At 4/3/2014 12:00:33 AM, philochristos wrote:I don't agree with this. People debate moral issues because they think there are correct answers to moral questions that can be discovered through debate and reason. If morality were subjective, then arguing over moral issues would be like arguing over whether ice cream tastes good. It would be silly.

We would still need to find ways to co-exist. Just because people may hold subjective views doesn't mean they don't care passionately about them, nor does it mean they suddenly don't have to deal with the fact we exist as part of a society and therefore have to work out social norms and rules.

But when people argue over morality, they don't simply argue pragmatism. They argue right and wrong.

"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle

At 4/3/2014 12:00:33 AM, philochristos wrote:I don't agree with this. People debate moral issues because they think there are correct answers to moral questions that can be discovered through debate and reason. If morality were subjective, then arguing over moral issues would be like arguing over whether ice cream tastes good. It would be silly.

We would still need to find ways to co-exist. Just because people may hold subjective views doesn't mean they don't care passionately about them, nor does it mean they suddenly don't have to deal with the fact we exist as part of a society and therefore have to work out social norms and rules.

But when people argue over morality, they don't simply argue pragmatism. They argue right and wrong.

Some do, some don't. It could also be argued that what informs those views of 'right' and 'wrong' is itself a form of pragmatism or at least rooted in such. That's beside the point though; you said people wouldn't argue over subjective morality because it would be like arguing over the best flavour of ice-cream. I was merely refuting this suggestions because it's quite clearly not analogous to subjective moral discourse.

You seem to be confusing "subjective" with "trivial". I'm not sure how you can think the form and direction of society or the ability for individuals to have any degree of security or freedom is trivial, regardless of whether it is a subjective form of emergent pragmatist complexity in human interpersonal behaviour (or something similar) or the search for, understanding and establishment of objective moral rules. "It matters" (objective) and "It matters to me" (subjective) both have the shared and significant element of "it matters".

If morality is subjective, as is generally accepted, then it should behave like all other subjective things such as taste in music and the definition of beauty. There are certain basic rules that apply to everyone. All people find symmetry appealing in a face and certain harmonies in music are proven to be very pleasing to the ear, just as the golden ration is used in art because it is pleasing to the eye. Beyond the basic rules, everything else is completely subjective which is why many can agree only on basic moral principles. We have basic ideas of right and wrong but beyond that, everyone has his/her own opinion based on his/her interpretation of those rules.

As a result of the acceptance of these basic rules, everyone feels that his/her opinion is correct because he/she can logically connect it to his/her interpretation of those rules.Maybe... this is just a seat-of-the-pants idea.

At 4/3/2014 8:59:29 AM, gpy222 wrote:If morality is subjective, as is generally accepted, then it should behave like all other subjective things such as taste in music and the definition of beauty. There are certain basic rules that apply to everyone. All people find symmetry appealing in a face and certain harmonies in music are proven to be very pleasing to the ear, just as the golden ration is used in art because it is pleasing to the eye. Beyond the basic rules, everything else is completely subjective which is why many can agree only on basic moral principles. We have basic ideas of right and wrong but beyond that, everyone has his/her own opinion based on his/her interpretation of those rules.

As a result of the acceptance of these basic rules, everyone feels that his/her opinion is correct because he/she can logically connect it to his/her interpretation of those rules.Maybe... this is just a seat-of-the-pants idea.

What in the world does it mean to "interpret a rule?" A rule is a rule. Again, i'll use food and water as an example. It is a rule, or it is required that humans acquire food and water, and to maximize their access to such needs. I do not see how you can "interpret" acquiring these needs to maximum potential. There's got to be a certain way in which one may acquire the max/best amount of this need. How one goes about solving for one's needs will directly and indirectly affect the outcome of one's access to such needs. Perhaps, realistically it's impossible to find the path to the best outcome (the mix of morals that get you there that must be applied in order to maximize access to needs), but through deduction (via logic and reasoning and sorting results), one can definitely argue that there are ways to act that WON'T give you secure access to such needs, and there are ways that WILL get you secure access to such needs. The harder part, of course, is figuring out how to maximize access to these needs.

At 4/2/2014 5:55:59 PM, Graincruncher wrote:What (I think!) you're saying about emergent problem solving based on needs is fairly near to what I mean, actually. There are certain required functional factors which inform the evolution of our thinking and behaviour regarding more complex problems. Some sort of Compromise Utilitarianism, where instead of 'maximal happiness' we go for 'maximal co-existence'.

Maximal co-existence would then maximize "happiness." If co-existence is a prerequisite to maximal-happiness, then achieving maximal happiness by itself is impossible. Therefore your max happiness in absolute terms will be lower in a life of co-existence than would be a life without such prerequisite.

At 4/2/2014 5:55:59 PM, Graincruncher wrote:What (I think!) you're saying about emergent problem solving based on needs is fairly near to what I mean, actually. There are certain required functional factors which inform the evolution of our thinking and behaviour regarding more complex problems. Some sort of Compromise Utilitarianism, where instead of 'maximal happiness' we go for 'maximal co-existence'.

Maximal co-existence would then maximize "happiness." If co-existence is a prerequisite to maximal-happiness, then achieving maximal happiness by itself is impossible. Therefore your max happiness in absolute terms will be lower in a life of co-existence than would be a life without such prerequisite.

lol.

So, in order to maximize our needs, we need to adopt optimal morals.

That's not what the term means; in utilitarianism 'maximum happiness' is a society-wide measure, not an individual one.

At 4/2/2014 5:55:59 PM, Graincruncher wrote:What (I think!) you're saying about emergent problem solving based on needs is fairly near to what I mean, actually. There are certain required functional factors which inform the evolution of our thinking and behaviour regarding more complex problems. Some sort of Compromise Utilitarianism, where instead of 'maximal happiness' we go for 'maximal co-existence'.

Maximal co-existence would then maximize "happiness." If co-existence is a prerequisite to maximal-happiness, then achieving maximal happiness by itself is impossible. Therefore your max happiness in absolute terms will be lower in a life of co-existence than would be a life without such prerequisite.

lol.

So, in order to maximize our needs, we need to adopt optimal morals.

That's not what the term means; in utilitarianism 'maximum happiness' is a society-wide measure, not an individual one.

oh, well okay then i think that's just another way of wording maximal co-existence (society-wide happiness) and maximal happiness (individually). In other words, individual happiness is dependent on societal happiness.

stick with me here:Obligatory or not, actions can be objectively moral. Objectively good or objectively bad in this sense applies regardless of whether or not the person performing the action believes it is so - for example, if I borrow money from you I am obligated to repay you that money even if I do not believe that I am (so, in a sense, it is objectively bad to fail at fulfilling any subjective obligation). Additionally, seemingly subjective actions are performed by those who believe that action to be objectively good - in other words our subjective obligation is to fulfill what we believe to be our objective obligation.So, something being "good" is particular to its circumstance, like a parent having the "right" to command their child - a good and nurturing parent has this right and thus makes the actions obligatory - this obligation being absent with the circumstance of an abusive parent. The same is experienced with a just government - its citizens are obligated to pay taxes in as much as it is the government's right to levy taxes (for example) - yet neither parent nor government have the right to command a bad action. So, people are obligated to obey/please a benefactor.This is a general principle of morality - As is the moral principle for doing evil to another person.with me so far?

At 4/3/2014 3:30:51 PM, subgenius wrote:stick with me here:Obligatory or not, actions can be objectively moral. Objectively good or objectively bad in this sense applies regardless of whether or not the person performing the action believes it is so - for example, if I borrow money from you I am obligated to repay you that money even if I do not believe that I am (so, in a sense, it is objectively bad to fail at fulfilling any subjective obligation). Additionally, seemingly subjective actions are performed by those who believe that action to be objectively good - in other words our subjective obligation is to fulfill what we believe to be our objective obligation.So, something being "good" is particular to its circumstance, like a parent having the "right" to command their child - a good and nurturing parent has this right and thus makes the actions obligatory - this obligation being absent with the circumstance of an abusive parent. The same is experienced with a just government - its citizens are obligated to pay taxes in as much as it is the government's right to levy taxes (for example) - yet neither parent nor government have the right to command a bad action. So, people are obligated to obey/please a benefactor.This is a general principle of morality - As is the moral principle for doing evil to another person.with me so far?

So what I got is that objectivity is defined by the action we take (e.g. getting a loan with the known objective of paying back) but how we choose to respond to the action is subjective (e.g. paying or not paying the loan is up to your discretion)? Therefore, you have the subjective moral obligation to pay back, otherwise the objective won't be fulfilled?

At 4/3/2014 2:39:35 PM, ben2974 wrote:oh, well okay then i think that's just another way of wording maximal co-existence (society-wide happiness) and maximal happiness (individually). In other words, individual happiness is dependent on societal happiness.

Sorry in advance if i'm not understanding you D:

I would probably phrase it "maximal-coexistence provides the greatest potential maximum for happiness". It is not about maximising happiness per se, but maximising the potential for it. This seems to me to be the best of both positive and negative utilitarian theories, without the major flaws.

There could be some problems with it though, as I basically came up with the idea when I made the post in the first place. It seems sound though, so I'm going to have to think about it a bit more.

At 4/3/2014 3:30:51 PM, subgenius wrote:stick with me here:Obligatory or not, actions can be objectively moral. Objectively good or objectively bad in this sense applies regardless of whether or not the person performing the action believes it is so - for example, if I borrow money from you I am obligated to repay you that money even if I do not believe that I am (so, in a sense, it is objectively bad to fail at fulfilling any subjective obligation). Additionally, seemingly subjective actions are performed by those who believe that action to be objectively good - in other words our subjective obligation is to fulfill what we believe to be our objective obligation.So, something being "good" is particular to its circumstance, like a parent having the "right" to command their child - a good and nurturing parent has this right and thus makes the actions obligatory - this obligation being absent with the circumstance of an abusive parent. The same is experienced with a just government - its citizens are obligated to pay taxes in as much as it is the government's right to levy taxes (for example) - yet neither parent nor government have the right to command a bad action. So, people are obligated to obey/please a benefactor.This is a general principle of morality - As is the moral principle for doing evil to another person.with me so far?

So what I got is that objectivity is defined by the action we take (e.g. getting a loan with the known objective of paying back) but how we choose to respond to the action is subjective (e.g. paying or not paying the loan is up to your discretion)? Therefore, you have the subjective moral obligation to pay back, otherwise the objective won't be fulfilled?

Can you expand on your government/taxes example?

i may not have explained clearly.if you make a promise to me then you are obligated to keep that promise. If you keep that promise then it is good...objectively good. If you break that promise - then bad. (while this may be influenced by circumstances, the result is the same - so lets keep it simple for now).This example is about the fulfillment for what may be considered a subjective obligation...and it is that fulfillment which is objective...either you kept your promise or you did not; either you paid the debt, or did not - that is the objective condition.make sense so far?let us keep moving....Now, consider when i use my finger to type the letter "P" here in the post. It was intentional, I moved my finger to the key for "P" with real intention, because i truly believe that the letter P will be pressed. These actions are a result from the belief in the success of the intention....without this premise there would no action in my finger towards the "P" key. No one ever does any action they do not believe they can do. I initiate the standing nerves and muscles to stand because i believe i can, etc.now skip aheadif the universe is objective - if it exists outside of my "mind" then surely others would notice it as well...ok...all of humanity recognizes "good" and "bad" in some basic form (i.e. altruism)...a basic standard that is the same across geography and time. Even those who deny an objective morality still behave in a manner as if there were an objective morality.Being able to quantify any particular moral "good" may seem difficult, but its existence is not reliant upon it.still with me?

At 4/2/2014 4:58:35 PM, ben2974 wrote:If general consensus says that morality is subjective, then why is it (morals) perpetually disputed? Why do peoples' pants get wet whenever someone thinks otherwise about a certain issue? If all controversy is subjective, then is there even a controversy to begin with?

I don't understand how some people can NOT like banana nut bread, but that doesn't mean that banana nut bread is objectively good.

This is my view on morality. Most people are appalled by rape, and can't understand how someone could do that to someone else, but that wouldn't make rape objectively wrong. The whole moral intuitions argument is a joke to me, because I have movie intuitions. My movie intuitions tell me the Godfather is the best movie ever made. No matter how much I feel this is true, it wouldn't change the fact saying "The Godfather is the best movie ever" is a subjective claim.

At 4/2/2014 4:58:35 PM, ben2974 wrote:If general consensus says that morality is subjective, then why is it (morals) perpetually disputed? Why do peoples' pants get wet whenever someone thinks otherwise about a certain issue? If all controversy is subjective, then is there even a controversy to begin with?

At 4/2/2014 4:58:35 PM, ben2974 wrote:If general consensus says that morality is subjective, then why is it (morals) perpetually disputed? Why do peoples' pants get wet whenever someone thinks otherwise about a certain issue? If all controversy is subjective, then is there even a controversy to begin with?

The general consensus is a bit of both. Folk morality assumes it is objective when we're young, subjective when we're in our 20s, then objective again when we are old. Moreover, within the discipline, there is around 53% thinking it is real (don't quote me on that!), 28% being anti-realists, and the rest 'other' (quasi-realists, constructivists, and some others like to categorise themselves as a 'third way', which I sympathise with).

Now, 53% isn't that strong a consensus, when I am not an objectivist, but I am, simply put, a realist, being a constructivist at this point in time (there is even debate whether constructivists are realists), and constructivism is in its Renaissance.

Even if it is all subjective, though, why wouldn't we debate the issues? We are by our nature uncomfortable if we disagree - we like to have consensus, and usually on our terms - and usually we can be factually wrong on a subjective opinion. Take the statement:

(1) Coriander tastes nice.

(1) is clearly subjective knowledge in this case. But can that subjective knowledge be false? Well, assuming an orthodox definition of knowledge (Knowledge is a justified true belief [plus solutions to Gettier cases]), we can have the following:

(2) Coriander tastes nice, because the present King of France is bald.

(2) now is clearly false. This of course seems like a ludicrous example, but take another sentence:

(3) Justin is a good person

(4) No good person is caught doing drugs, and all persons who do not commit crimes are good people.

Now, assume I believe both (3) and (4). Now, while (3) is subjective, you have justified (3) on (4). Moreover, suppose Justin has been caught doing drugs. Therefore, while (3) is subjective, you are false for believing that (3) is true, for you. We could not say both (3) and (4) can be true, for you, at the same time.

This kind of argumentation about ethics, most prominently pushed by those like Gilbert Harman, still allows for ethical debate in a subjective morality-world. These kinds of situations are very interesting, I find.

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

At 4/2/2014 4:58:35 PM, ben2974 wrote:If general consensus says that morality is subjective, then why is it (morals) perpetually disputed? Why do peoples' pants get wet whenever someone thinks otherwise about a certain issue? If all controversy is subjective, then is there even a controversy to begin with?

Because there isn't a general consensus that morality is subjective.

Depends who you ask.

Which is my point, if it depends on who you ask, then there isn't a general consensus.